TABLE 1.

Quality assessment of the selected studies.

PCT
Anderson-Hanley et al., 2012	Some concerns	High	High	Some concerns	Some concerns	High
Barcelos et al., 2015	Some concerns	High	High	Some concerns	Some concerns	High
MCT
Park and Yim, 2016	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Schoene et al., 2013	Some concerns	Some concerns	High	Low	Some concerns	Moderate
Schoene et al., 2015	Some concerns	High	Low	Low	Low	Moderate
Gschwind et al., 2015	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Low
Schättin et al., 2016	Low	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	High	Moderate
Adcock et al., 2020	Some concerns	High	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low	Moderate
Carrasco et al., 2019	High	High	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	High
Eggenberger et al., 2015	Some concerns	High	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Moderate
Eggenberger et al., 2016	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low	Moderate
Huang, 2020	Some concerns	High	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	High
Li et al., 2020	Some concerns	High	High	Low	Low	High
MDT
Kayama et al., 2014	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low	Low	Moderate
Maillot et al., 2012	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low	Some concerns	Some concerns	Moderate
Chuang et al., 2015	High	High	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	High
Ordnung et al., 2017	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Guimarães et al., 2018	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Htut et al., 2018	Some concerns	Low	Low	Low	Some concerns	Low
Bacha et al., 2018	Low	Some concerns	Low	Some concerns	Low	Low
Peng et al., 2020	High	High	High	Low	High	High
Moreira et al., 2021	High	Low	Low	Some concerns	Low	Moderate
Gouveia et al., 2021	Low	Low	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Moderate
	Bias arising from the randomization process	Bias arising from the randomization process	Bias due to missing	Bias in the measurement of outcomes	Bias in the selection of reported results	Overall bias

PCT, physical-cognitive training; MCT, motor-cognitive training; MDT, multidomain training.